Tripletex MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions searching by 'name or other filters' and the purpose of finding IDs for logging hours, but it lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'from' and 'count' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks behavioral context needed for effective tool use, especially for a search operation with multiple filters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'name or other filters' and the high-level goal of finding project IDs. It doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for projects by name or other filters.' It specifies the resource (projects) and the action (search). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_activities' or 'search_invoices' beyond mentioning projects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some usage context: 'Use this to find project IDs for logging hours.' This implies when to use it (for logging hours), but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_recent_projects' or other search tools. No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.